Implications of Climate Change on Outdoor Recreation: The Case of National Parks in Israel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Introduction section too long. I suggest you split it in two: one covering the introduction to the research problem and the other covering the literature review.
2. In my opinion, a more informative econometric model would be the one with panel regression with dummy variables for national park. Why make 5 different models when you have 3 climatic zones and your objective is to show weather sensitivity according to climatic zone? Panel analysis employs both spatial and time distribution of variables as opposed to a number of time series that employ only time distribution of variables, and as such is more informative and gives better parameter predictions. Since change of model would cause for massive paper disruption, I recommend that you mention panel analysis as other possible econometric technique, either in study limitations or recommendations for future studies, and that you justify use of time series.
3. Include lagged variables (up to several days) for terror event, as you did with the number of international tourists, since terror event can have negative effect on park attendance in subsequent days as well.
4. In line 185 you give formula, but you do not give explanation for y and m notation.
5. In lines 341 and 342 you state: “For each park, the best model according to goodness of fit was chosen.” It is not clear how multiple models for one park are created. Explain what was varied in order to get multiple predictions.

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you for your kind reply, which helped us improve our manuscript.

We thank you for your thorough reading of the paper. The helpful suggestions were instructive. We sincerely appreciate the effort spent on the paper. In light of the comments, we made clarifications in our text as required.

We are confident that the manuscript is improved as a result of your guidance. Please find below a list of the comments and our reply to each.

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introduction section too long. I suggest you split it in two: one covering the introduction to the research problem and the other covering the literature review.

Response: We followed the journal instruction. The journal template does not include a separate literature review section.

1. In my opinion, a more informative econometric model would be the one with panel regression with dummy variables for national park. Why make 5 different models when you have 3 climatic zones and your objective is to show weather sensitivity according to climatic zone? Panel analysis employs both spatial and time distribution of variables as opposed to a number of time series that employ only time distribution of variables, and as such is more informative and gives better parameter predictions. Since change of model would cause for massive paper disruption, I recommend that you mention panel analysis as other possible econometric technique, either in study limitations or recommendations for future studies, and that you justify use of time series.

 

 

Response: We added the recommendation for future research the recommendation to use panel data analysis (lines 498-500)

1. Include lagged variables (up to several days) for terror event, as you did with the number of international tourists, since terror event can have negative effect on park attendance in subsequent days as well.

Response: A lagged variable for terror was added.  It did not affect international tourism. Effects on domestic tourism are reported in the paper.

1. In line 185 you give formula, but you do not give explanation for y and m notation. Response: The notations for y and m were omitted.
2. In lines 341 and 342 you state: “For each park, the best model according to goodness of fit was chosen.” It is not clear how multiple models for one park are created. Explain what was varied in order to get multiple predictions.

Response: we have tested combinations of different explanatory variables and choose the combination with the best goodness of fit

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript's purpose was to evaluate the potential impact of climate change on visits to outdoor recreation sites in Israel. To achieve that, the authors analyzed the impacts of weather conditions and economic parameters on the number of domestic and international tourists visiting national parks in different climatic zones within the country. The study shows interesting results on how the variables analyzed can affect the tourism in the parks, but there is little explanation relating their findings to climate change, and other aspects could also be improved.   

I would like to make the following suggestions:

Title:

I recommend the authors revise the title, so it is more consistent with the paper's content.

Abstract:

It is concise and clear, but I wonder if the authors could indicate the name of the country and the period that was analyzed (2012–2017) to give readers more information about the study.

Introduction:

The authors contextualize how climate change can impact tourism, they cite studies that investigated that relationship and highlight what is similar to the literature and what is innovative about their study (high-resolution data and focus on the decision on visiting an outdoor attraction after the decision to travel to the country is made). However, as noticed in the abstract, the authors do not indicate the study area and why they chose Israel and the parks.

On pages 2 (lines 66–70) and 4 (147–177), the authors bring attention to their study, and the paragraphs could be revised to mention the area they investigated. It would also be helpful to include a location map.

Page 4. Lines 171–173. The authors wrote “This research focuses on the decision on visiting an outdoor attraction after the decision to travel to the country is made.”, but I could not find that in the paper. Is it possible to explain a bit more?

Materials and Methods: 

The section begins by describing the approach taken without mentioning the study site, and that makes it challenging to understand the whole purpose of the study. I would suggest the authors change the order of sections 2.3 Data (page 6) and 2.3.1 Characteristics of the National Parks (page 7). They show important information about the area of study and could be the first sections of Materials and Methods to help understand the content. Then they could follow the previous order that details their approach to analyzing domestic and international tourism.

I would also suggest the authors increase the resolution of Figure 2 (page 7) and Figure 3 (page 9) so readers can see the legend and the axis clearly.

Results:

The authors present the analysis of statistically significant explanatory variables (related to climate conditions and economic parameters) impacting the decision of international and domestic tourists about visiting the parks.

They summarize the results indicating some differences between the factors that affect international and domestic tourism (e.g., risk on Israeli's is negative but it largely does not affect international tourists; international tourists prefer to visit the national parks on weekdays, but domestic tourists prefer to visit on weekends; and both rain and higher temperature reduce the international and domestic tourists' demand).

The findings are relevant, but I would suggest the authors incorporate further explanation about the implications of climate change on tourism in Israel. As it is presented, it doesn't seem that the paper addresses the subject.

Pages 10–12. Tables 2 and 3. I suggest the authors include an em or en dash (–) where there is no regression result instead of leaving blank cells. That would make it easier to read the content of the tables. 

Page 13. Lines 416–418. The authors said that “Income has a negative effect only on visits to Masada maybe reflecting the popularity of the remote attraction with the younger generation.” I wonder if it is possible to explain that a bit more.

Discussion:

Page 13. Lines 455–457. “When contemplating significant CC effects on the distribution of temperature, precipitation and other conditions around the world, the whole typology of tourism destinations might change.” How are the results related to that?

Page 14. Lines 481–484. “The research results indicate that if according to climate projections, the average temperature in Israel increases by 2 degrees by the year 2050, and assuming that visitors’ preferences do not alter with climate change, the number of international and domestic tourists to outdoor recreation sites will significantly decline.” I wonder if the authors could explain that a bit more because the projection was not identified in the Results section.

Conclusion:

The authors did not present that section, so it was not possible to relate their conclusions to the objectives that were proposed.

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you for your kind reply, which helped us improve our manuscript.

We thank you for your thorough reading of the paper. The helpful suggestions were instructive. We sincerely appreciate the effort spent on the paper. In light of the comments, we made clarifications in our text as required.

We are confident that the manuscript is improved as a result of your guidance. Please find below a list of the comments and our reply to each.

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

			Yes		Can be improved		Must be improved		Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?		( )		( )		(x)		( )
Is the research design appropriate?		( )		(x)		( )		( )
Are the methods adequately described?		( )		(x)		( )		( )
Are the results clearly presented?		( )		( )		(x)		( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?		( )		( )		(x)		( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript's purpose was to evaluate the potential impact of climate change on visits to outdoor recreation sites in Israel. To achieve that, the authors analyzed the impacts of weather conditions and economic parameters on the number of domestic and international tourists visiting national parks in different climatic zones within the country. The study shows interesting results on how the variables analyzed can affect the tourism in the parks, but there is little explanation relating their findings to climate change, and other aspects could also be improved.   

I would like to make the following suggestions:

Title:

I recommend the authors revise the title, so it is more consistent with the paper's content.

Response : The title was changed

Abstract:

It is concise and clear, but I wonder if the authors could indicate the name of the country and the period that was analyzed (2012–2017) to give readers more information about the study.

Response: We added the information.

Introduction:

The authors contextualize how climate change can impact tourism, they cite studies that investigated that relationship and highlight what is similar to the literature and what is innovative about their study (high-resolution data and focus on the decision on visiting an outdoor attraction after the decision to travel to the country is made). However, as noticed in the abstract, the authors do not indicate the study area and why they chose Israel and the parks.

Response: We added explanations for choosing Israel in lines 470-473.

On pages 2 (lines 66–70) and 4 (147–177), the authors bring attention to their study, and the paragraphs could be revised to mention the area they investigated.

Response: We added the area of investigation in the abstract, introduction and the title.

 It would also be helpful to include a location map.

Response: A map is included in the paper. We moved it earlier in Section 2. A reference to the map was added in the introduction (line 160).

Page 4. Lines 171–173. The authors wrote “This research focuses on the decision on visiting an outdoor attraction after the decision to travel to the country is made.”, but I could not find that in the paper. Is it possible to explain a bit more?

Response:  The research is based on the actual data on origin of tourists visiting the national reserves. The tourist did not answer a survey regarding their preferences or the decision to visit Israel.

Materials and Methods: 

The section begins by describing the approach taken without mentioning the study site, and that makes it challenging to understand the whole purpose of the study. I would suggest the authors change the order of sections 2.3 Data (page 6) and 2.3.1 Characteristics of the National Parks (page 7). They show important information about the area of study and could be the first sections of Materials and Methods to help understand the content. Then they could follow the previous order that details their approach to analyzing domestic and international tourism.

Response: We have restructured Section 2 according to the comment.

I would also suggest the authors increase the resolution of Figure 2 (page 7) and Figure 3 (page 9) so readers can see the legend and the axis clearly.

Response:We increased the resolution of the diagrams and added legends .

Results:

The authors present the analysis of statistically significant explanatory variables (related to climate conditions and economic parameters) impacting the decision of international and domestic tourists about visiting the parks.

They summarize the results indicating some differences between the factors that affect international and domestic tourism (e.g., risk on Israeli's is negative but it largely does not affect international tourists; international tourists prefer to visit the national parks on weekdays, but domestic tourists prefer to visit on weekends; and both rain and higher temperature reduce the international and domestic tourists' demand).

The findings are relevant, but I would suggest the authors incorporate further explanation about the implications of climate change on tourism in Israel. As it is presented, it doesn't seem that the paper addresses the subject.

Response: Clarification was added in the discussion, lines 488- 495.

Pages 10–12. Tables 2 and 3. I suggest the authors include an em or en dash (–) where there is no regression result instead of leaving blank cells. That would make it easier to read the content of the tables. 

Response: Dash was added as suggested

Page 13. Lines 416–418. The authors said that “Income has a negative effect only on visits to Masada maybe reflecting the popularity of the remote attraction with the younger generation.” I wonder if it is possible to explain that a bit more.

Response: Explanation was added in lines 429-432.

Discussion:

Page 13. Lines 455–457. “When contemplating significant CC effects on the distribution of temperature, precipitation and other conditions around the world, the whole typology of tourism destinations might change.” How are the results related to that?

Response: We removed this hypothesis

Page 14. Lines 481–484. “The research results indicate that if according to climate projections, the average temperature in Israel increases by 2 degrees by the year 2050, and assuming that visitors’ preferences do not alter with climate change, the number of international and domestic tourists to outdoor recreation sites will significantly decline.” I wonder if the authors could explain that a bit more because the projection was not identified in the Results section.

Response: Clarification was added in the discussion, lines 488- 493.

Conclusion:

The authors did not present that section, so it was not possible to relate their conclusions to the objectives that were proposed.

Response:  This section is not mandatory in the journal

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the interesting research.

1. My main comment is the lack of a section on the limitations and uncertainties of your study. It would help if you were more critical of the results and their discussion. For example, in the manuscript, I did not find at least a qualitative assessment of the role of the tourist priority of this or that national park and the historical objects located in them. Suppose I am a foreign tourist and wish to come to Israel for ten days. In case of adverse weather conditions, I rank the objects I have chosen to visit according to the priority principle to try to see at least something. This is exactly what foreign tourists do, limited by the duration of their stay in a particular country. Moreover, foreign tourists most often stay in the two largest and most important cities in Israel (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem) and from there make their planned trips, including to the parks you mentioned. The conditions and travel time (by bus, car ... ) are also factors in determining the above priority. I believe that the discussion of the results is incomplete.
2. It looks extraordinary that neither in the Abstract nor in the Introduction, the authors have ever mentioned the name of the country to which the study is devoted. Moreover, since your research is not universal, but only a case study from Israel, the name of this country should also be mentioned in the title of the manuscript.
3. The map in Figure 2 is hard to read. Moreover, I did not understand what “catchment climatic classes” is. What meaning do you put in “catchment” in the context of your research?
4. I understood very little from Figure 3. What do the horizontal and vertical axes of the charts mean? Please increase the readability of the charts.
5. In table 1, you must specify all units of measurement.
6. In tables 2 and 3, why do the values of the coefficients have thousandths? What does this give the reader?
7. The English language of the manuscript needs improvement.

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you for your kind reply, which helped us improve our manuscript.

We thank you for your thorough reading of the paper. The helpful suggestions were instructive. We sincerely appreciate the effort spent on the paper. In light of the comments, we made clarifications in our text as required.

We are confident that the manuscript is improved as a result of your guidance. Please find below a list of the comments and our reply to each.

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the interesting research.

1. My main comment is the lack of a section on the limitations and uncertainties of your study. It would help if you were more critical of the results and their discussion. For example, in the manuscript, I did not find at least a qualitative assessment of the role of the tourist priority of this or that national park and the historical objects located in them. Suppose I am a foreign tourist and wish to come to Israel for ten days. In case of adverse weather conditions, I rank the objects I have chosen to visit according to the priority principle to try to see at least something. This is exactly what foreign tourists do, limited by the duration of their stay in a particular country. Moreover, foreign tourists most often stay in the two largest and most important cities in Israel (Tel Aviv and Jerusalem) and from there make their planned trips, including to the parks you mentioned. The conditions and travel time (by bus, car ... ) are also factors in determining the above priority. I believe that the discussion of the results is incomplete.

Response: The data are based on the registry data of the actual visits to the national reserves, and not on a survey asking the tourists about their preferences. Therefore, the results do not include a ranking of the natural reserves. We added in lines 497-499 a recommendation to include a survey in future research.

2. It looks extraordinary that neither in the Abstract nor in the Introduction, the authors have ever mentioned the name of the country to which the study is devoted. Moreover, since your research is not universal, but only a case study from Israel, the name of this country should also be mentioned in the title of the manuscript.

Response: We added the area of investigation in the abstract, introduction and the title.

1. The map in Figure 2 is hard to read. Moreover, I did not understand what “catchment climatic classes” is. What meaning do you put in “catchment” in the context of your research?

Response: the scale of the map and legend was increased. The catchment climatic classes were removed

1. I understood very little from Figure 3. What do the horizontal and vertical axes of the charts mean? Please increase the readability of the charts.

Response: the scale of the Figure and legend was increased. We added explanations for the axes in figure 3.

1. In table 1, you must specify all units of measurement.

Response: all the units are specified in brackets of the corresponding indicator

1. In tables 2 and 3, why do the values of the coefficients have thousandths? What does this give the reader?

Response: We corrected the coefficients according to the suggestion.

1. The English language of the manuscript needs improvement.

Response: The manuscript was reviewed by English language editor.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised the manuscript, addressed the major aspects that were pointed out, and presented an improved version of their work. However, Figure 2 needs a higher resolution and the English language and style still need attention.

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you for your kind reply, which helped us improving further  the manuscript.

We increased the resolution in figure 2.

The paper was sent again to professional English editing services.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
Thank you for the revision of the manuscript. However, in the manuscript, I did not find the answer to my first and primary remark - the absence of a subsection on the main limitations and uncertainties of your study. The reader should have a clear idea of the "weaknesses" of your research. Please be critical of your findings.

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you for your kind reply, which helped us improving further  the manuscript.

We added a discussion on the research limitations in lines 500-512.

The paper was sent again to professional English editing services.